So, the last few days there have been two major news stories about the subject of rape. Today, the death penalty (by hanging) was announced for four of the Delhi gang rapists. A few days ago, a survey was published in which 23% of all men in East Asia admitted to having committed at least one rape in their lifetimes.

That's Asia. Then there is the recurring story of 'war rape' in Africa, which still seems to be very wide-spread practice in conflict zones around the continent.

These news stories of course lull us Europeans and North Americans into the false thought that this is a problem of "less civilised" nations on other, less developed continents. That's obviously a load of bull. In fact, according to Wikipedia's rape statistics, reported cases of rape in some Western countries easily rival those of some sub-Saharan African or Asian countries.

The above is just some very basic information to start off this thread. The real purpose of this thread is to discuss how we, as a society, be it in the richest country of the world or the poorest country of the world (it is a global phenomenon and we should all find solutions together) tackle this problem. How do we increase reporting (most rapes go unreported), how do we improve prosecution, how do we change attitudes towards women, children or "weaker" men that are being sexually preyed upon? How do we begin to find solutions to perhaps finally eradicate this despicable crime?

I'm a guy, and when I was 16 (over half my life ago) I woke up after a party hungover with a cock in my mouth. I screamed, and the fuckwit literally ran away. It was fucking awful, even more so that I considered myself bisexual at the time, that ended that.

Mind you, I've met plenty of sexually aggressive females since.

_________________[quote="MutantClannfear"]were there an awards ceremony held on MA, Back Stabbath would win "User Most Likely to Use Hard Drugs While Posting" by a country mile

"Eradicate" rape? The only way to "eradicate" the crime is mandatory.....I don't even know what the right term is. Not castration, not vasectomy, just something to kill the sex drive. There's no other way to make it not happen. And even then, for serial rapists, I'm pretty sure psychiatrists say that's more about power than sex, so it would still happen.

Raising the percentage of victims who actually report the crime would be useful, but outside of mandatory reporting (which would be pretty much impossible to enforce) the only way I can think to raise it would be to try to get rid of the shame/social stigma aspect of it, which might have the perverse effect of making it seem more alright in the eyes of perpetrators. You can't make it so that reporting the crime means a mandatory rape kit, given how invasive that is you would just discourage victims from reporting it in the first place.

You could start forcing schools to teach self-defense courses in class but that's not really very useful considering how much rape happens when the victim is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Speaking of which, just teaching people to party in groups and have the decency to watch each others' back would probably cut down on it a lot.

I don't know, at least in the U.S. I can't imagine anything that would make it better rapidly. I know lots of police offices here don't keep evidence (for any crime) longer than a certain period of time and aren't equipped to keep rape evidence (like DNA) for long without it degrading to the point of uselessness, so that's something that could be done. But most of the best things to do relate to societal attitudes and I don't think there's much more that can be done on that front here. Even if there is, it will take a long ass time.

_________________We represent in ourselves organized terror—this must be said very clearly.---Felix Dzerzhinsky, first Cheka director

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

This is actually one of the famous flaws with Anarchism. If society breaks down, and all hell breaks loose, I'm gonna try to get any kind of missile launcher I can and blow away all those farking rapist cants who attempt to escape from prison. And then probably die horribly, because there's a LOT of them. Fuck this subject.

_________________[quote="MutantClannfear"]were there an awards ceremony held on MA, Back Stabbath would win "User Most Likely to Use Hard Drugs While Posting" by a country mile

Earthcubed has a point on that whole partying in groups thing. Seriously, never go out to a club in a group of less than three people. I mean, this is just my opinion, but that way you've always got someone looking out for you. Also, never pass out at a party where there are a large amount of unfamiliar faces. It's really not THAT hard to watch how much you're drinking. Don't take drinks from people you are not extremely familiar with (and I mean people you know very well), pretty common sense stuff.

He's also very right, rape is more about some sort of power complex than it is about the sex. So you know, no real way to eradicate that. People are sick, very sick. No one wants to admit that they were raped, especially because there are a lot of people out there who'd like to just assume that whomever is making the claim is doing it for the attention. Which is also a problem, because there ARE people who claim rape just because they regret sleeping with someone. Realistically, there really is no way to eradicate rape as a problem, just like eradicating murder will never happen, and world peace probably will never come to fruition. Pretty bleak outlook, especially from a guy who happens to be pretty optimistic, but that's just the way it is, unfortunately. The human condition.

I don't buy the whole "it's all about power". You can't tell me that it's never some guy just being really desperate to get laid and potentially not entirely sober himself (looking specifically at aformentioned club cases) or the result of some real psychological issues. Sure, it may be about power sometimes, but rape happens for multiple reasons just the same as murder.

_________________

Wilytank wrote:

I once knew a guy that stole another guy's virginity and sold it on the black market for some FUCKIN' WEED.

I don't buy the whole "it's all about power". You can't tell me that it's never some guy just being really desperate to get laid and potentially not entirely sober himself (looking specifically at aformentioned club cases) or the result of some real psychological issues. Sure, it may be about power sometimes, but rape happens for multiple reasons just the same as murder.

There can be other reasons for rape, yes, but when it comes to serial rapists, it's always about power. Sure, sad bastards who took advantage of a drunk/unconscious gal because they wouldn't get an opportunity otherwise exist, and I even bet that they'd be willing to admit that they did such a thing as long as you don't call it "rape", but guys who only get off by forcing the girl have more problems than just not getting laid. Most rational men, if desperate enough, would simply pay a hooker for a BJ or something.

I would also make a joke about your user name, but that'd be too cheap.

_________________

Nochielo wrote:

Crick wrote:

Years from now, no one will remember Gandhi. They will speak only of Fenriz.

Rape always means degrading the victim to a masturbatory object. It means completely violating their personal autonomy and emotional integrity. A rapist does not simply follow his urges and in the process victimizes people quasi by accident. That would turn him into an animal, but rapists aren't animals. Rape is something humans do. It's a perverse act of power. It's never just masturbation.

Even if the display of power is not the intended goal it is always a part of the crime which the rapist willfully agrees with, except in cases where drugs or madness have temporarily turned him completely into a creature incapable of reason. Alcohol can't do that.

I'm always disgusted with rape stories in America, particularly because there is such a severe sense of slut-shaming and victim blaming here. Girl passes out and is raped at a party? Well she shouldn't have had that last beer. Girl gets pulled off the street while walking by herself? Did you see how she was dress? She was asking for/deserved it. Or to put it another way, it's never the rapist's fault because he couldn't control his dick; it's always the woman's fault for grabbing his dick's attention.

Death penalty is a savage punishment even for serial killers, I can never agree with it for any crime. When someone commits a crime as bad as the rape crimes that happened in India or serial child molestation or mass murder then we should psycho analyse these people. What makes these people commit these horrific acts and learn how to a) spot the behaviour in the future and b) try and minimise it by treating people who we deem likely to commit such an act.

I believe that people who rape, whether it be men, women or children have something very very wrong with them. Maybe it's utter sexual frustration or a defect in their brain that means they just find the idea of rape appealing as opposed to conventional consensual sex. There is a lot to be learned from these people, killing them serves no purpose only as an act of savage vengeance thats not befitting a civilised nation.

I don't personally believe that porn or sexualised music videos or anything like that makes rape any more likely and I think banning anything like that is an attack on personal freedom for both the person who enjoys material like that or the woman partaking in a porn film(lets remember these women had a choice in the matter and are well compensated for what they do) whether it's a moral issue is subjective and dependent on the person's own attitudes. I will however add that no matter how provocatively a woman dresses it is NOT excusable to blame her if she is raped. I think it's an extension of what I believe personal freedoms are, women and men should be able to dress how they like(within legal limits of course) without the fear of sexual assault and violation.

I think one point I'd like to raise to defend m position on porn etc... is that rape I believe is down to gender differences. Men are generally much more sexual than women, we get aroused way more easily and we are also genetically stronger than women, a legacy from our hunter and gatherer past. I believe that is the reason rape happens, it easier for a man to overpower a woman and he is more likely to be sexually excited. Look at places like sub Saharan Africa where a lot of these brutal rapes happen, they are highly unlikely to have access to the same sexual content we can find with a click of a mouse here in Europe/USA etc... and they are not exposed to the same music videos we are exposed to yet rape exists and it is as brutal and horrifying as it is here.

What needs to happen is education and a change of attitudes, that new MGSV character while utterly sexualised and completely ridiculous isn't going to cause a rape pandemic. I think Hideo Kojima should be able to put whatever type of character in his game that he wants. Even if she is a terribly over sexualised and male fantasy type character. Stopping rape starts at home, no matter how much porn I could see or no matter how many big boobed video game characters I see isn't going to make me any more likely to rape because I have not only a respect for women but also a respect for other humans and a respect for human rights and life. That has been because of my up bringing.

I think the problem with rape is that in our culture, chivalry and honour are seen as something "old fashioned", while the popular image of the model male is to be "tough, judgemental, loud, aggressive, obnoxious, and getting loads of pussy".

With the typical thick-skulled "alpha male" stereotype being so popular on TV, in school, in sports, in this "hip hop" culture that's perpetuated in pop-culture, is it any wonder we get a high rate of young males committing deplorable acts??Throw loneliness, low self-esteem, and peer pressure/competition in there and you get a recipe for disaster.

I'm always disgusted with rape stories in America, particularly because there is such a severe sense of slut-shaming and victim blaming here. Girl passes out and is raped at a party? Well she shouldn't have had that last beer. Girl gets pulled off the street while walking by herself? Did you see how she was dress? She was asking for/deserved it. Or to put it another way, it's never the rapist's fault because he couldn't control his dick; it's always the woman's fault for grabbing his dick's attention.

Agreed. That's honestly the crux of the problem with regards to rape in the Western world, I think. Ask anyone and they'll go "of course rape is horrifically bad!!" and other such platitudes. But all they think about is the jumping-from-the-bushes predator that hardly exists in real life. Most rape victims are raped by someone they know. When it comes to rape in dates or frat parties, the shrugging, slut-shaming and victim-blaming invariably starts. Who wants to bet that many rapists don't even see themselves as such? They'd never ambush a woman in a dark alley, of course. But taking advantage of a near (or outright) passed out woman at a party is just "boys being boys", their date really meant yes and were just playing hard to get, etc.

And let us not forget prison rape. The "rape is awful duh!" platitudes aside, many yet will cheer for the notion of a criminal being gang raped in prison.

_________________

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Extreme_violence wrote:

Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

I agree that rape culture is awful, of course, but I think the actual problem is something deeper and more psychological/biological than it is social. Granted I was never in a frat or anything, but I've been friends with lots of people and have done the whole "college thing" which is where so many Western rapes happen. I've also been exposed to all of the same elements of rape culture that your average Western college date/frat rapist has been exposed to. Yet, for me, the actual act of rape is utterly confounding and horrifying. Not only do I not ever have the sorts of desires that would lead to that sort of thing, I also have zero ability to empathize with those who do.

So, while rape culture certainly exacerbates the problem by giving rapists the feeling of security they need to function without a guaranteed bad outcome on their part, there's just gotta be something else that comes into play.

This is actually one of the famous flaws with Anarchism. If society breaks down, and all hell breaks loose, I'm gonna try to get any kind of missile launcher I can and blow away all those farking rapist cants who attempt to escape from prison. And then probably die horribly, because there's a LOT of them. Fuck this subject.

I'm always disgusted with rape stories in America, particularly because there is such a severe sense of slut-shaming and victim blaming here. Girl passes out and is raped at a party? Well she shouldn't have had that last beer. Girl gets pulled off the street while walking by herself? Did you see how she was dress? She was asking for/deserved it. Or to put it another way, it's never the rapist's fault because he couldn't control his dick; it's always the woman's fault for grabbing his dick's attention.

Some may be engaging in slut-shaming or victim-blaming when they say these types of things, but that doesn't change the basis of thoughts like "she shouldn't have had that last beer". It is acknowledging that there are people who will violate you and your person, and that taking precautions or avoiding certain situations will lessen the likelihood of you being harmed.

I'm less concerned with time served in forcible rape cases than I am with prosecution of statutory or other 'rape' charges. In clear cut cases of rape, the rapist is typically punished for a fairly long period of time (focusing on longer drug sentences would suggest lowering/eliminating said sentences rather than escalating punishment for other criminality to compensate). Sentencing should reflect the nature of the crime, and since rape charges are frequently prosecuted on the basis of he said/she said or hearsay evidence (absent physical evidence such as imprisonment, kidnapping, manipulation via pharmaceutical means), a wide range of possible sentencing outcomes is very much appropriate. What is more contestable are laws that incarcerate a 17 year old for having sex with their 15 or 16 year old partner under the banner of rape, and they end up having their life ruined because of legislated morality.

I'm always disgusted with rape stories in America, particularly because there is such a severe sense of slut-shaming and victim blaming here. Girl passes out and is raped at a party? Well she shouldn't have had that last beer. Girl gets pulled off the street while walking by herself? Did you see how she was dress? She was asking for/deserved it. Or to put it another way, it's never the rapist's fault because he couldn't control his dick; it's always the woman's fault for grabbing his dick's attention.

I agree, but if that was aimed at me, that was not at all my intent. All I'm saying is that in today's society, you should be smart enough to take precautions. It's not your fault if these things happen. I'll be entirely honest though, even as a very well built, confident man, I stray from walking alone at night in less than crowded areas. So I just feel that as a woman especially, you should be much more careful with where you decide to take a stroll at night. I mean, things happen in crowds all the time, but the chances of it are a bit less likely than say, walking alone in a less than respectful area in the dead of night. Again, not the woman/man's fault if these types of things end up happening. I'm just saying that precautions should always be taken.

I'm the last guy to do any form of victim blaming, but as has been mentioned several times, there's many things people can do to lessen the chances of being victims themselves. As someone who drinks himself to oblivion several times a week, NEVER do it outdoors or when there are large groups of strangers. Only in a friend's house, supposing this friend isn't the type to randomly invite lots of people over suddenly. Same goes about the taking a stroll in the park at night wearing hot pants. I mean, if I dangle a wad of cash off a rubber band from my pocket and walk through an alley and I get mugged, of course the mugger's a sonofabitch who deserves jail but it wasn't the smartest thing for me to do either.

I am actually for draconian punishment when it comes to rape. Execution if not castration(with a knife and cold water only), I don't care about any rapist rights. Nothing else seems to work so maybe we'll kill them til the rest are scared enough.

I don't buy the whole "it's all about power". You can't tell me that it's never some guy just being really desperate to get laid and potentially not entirely sober himself (looking specifically at aformentioned club cases) or the result of some real psychological issues. Sure, it may be about power sometimes, but rape happens for multiple reasons just the same as murder.

Your saying a guy can't get a girl to like him enough so she can consent to have sex but is outgoing and desperate enough to force one too. That makes no sense. Even a club case is about control and dominance. Lets say a guy is talking to a girl and she doesn't want to go over to his house. She blocks him off and he can't have what he wants. He then takes her back somewhere and rapes her. At that point it isn't about sex.

A major problem that involves sexual violence in relationships is our cultures fascination with abstinence only sex education. There is almost no public school education on consent, or anything not related to anatomy.

Now, now... All of these discussions on the net always boil down to "castration with a rusty baseball bat for all the rapists" for some people. Let's not get carried away here. I'm definitely against any rape, but the issue is of such complexity that the preceding sentence and its kind is a very bad reaction.

First of all, the definition of rape itself varies around the world. In the sub-Saharan Africa, a rape is probably much more likely to be committed by the stalker in the bushes or a passer-by than in the western world. In countries where rape in marriage is not a crime, the statistics are definitely not comparable to the ones with such laws. And amount and severity of the coercion necessary to consider intercourse a rape varies a lot in the eyes of the laws in different countries.

Compare, say, Finland and some African nation. We have a law that defines forced sexual acts in marriage rapes, as I think they should be. Certain parts of Africa have probably never even heard about the idea, knowing that there a wife is an extension of other property. We had a very heated discussion half a decade ago, when the law was about to be revised to separate rape from "forcing into sexual intercourse", to differentiate between the levels of severity and to give the courts more guidelines and freedom to find the right label for the crime, and also to make a lesser crime out of the cases where the layman's definition of a rape is definitely not filled. The "every rape is an atrocity!" outcry from the femist groups and women's rights folks killed the idea, if I remember correctly, and now the courts must set free and drop the charges of any sexual crimes against, say, a woman's boss who uses clever sentence structures to tell her that it's time to have some carnal fun, of the next downsizing wave will mean the end of her job. It's either rape, which it really isn't, or it's just some sort of extortion, and the legal definition of rape is hardly fulfilled there. Which means that the boss walks away with no stain whatsoever that would mark him as a sexual predator. Serves a purpose, doesn't it? No, it doesn't.

Generally, the mental image people have of rapes is very violent, but if you fail to see the difference between, on one hand, being stalked in the night by a stranger, getting beaten up, fucked with extreme hateful violence, and being left naked and bleeding in freezing conditions, and on the other hand, being told that there will not be a raise for you unless you suck a team manager's dick, you're simplifying things a lot. Yes, it's about the right to control your own sexual identity and so forth, but there are degrees in everything.

Another issue, of course, is the difficulty of making a distinction, beyond a reasonable doubt, on whether or not some act was rape or not. And that applies to those frat house rapes. Remember, being labelled a rapist is a very serious thing for young men, and if any claims by young women about being raped while drunk in such situations led to conviction, we'd have a rather horrible society on our hands. The usual difficulty is with the morning after regrets young females tend to have, and the sex a girl had after downing her first sixpack ever might lead to extreme regret on her part afterwards, no matter how willingly she engaged in it at the time; one personal solution to that is to cry rape, and using that as a definition of rape would lead to extremely distorted society. There is a level of self-responsibility in the world, even when it comes to drunken females.

That does not, of course, mean that I think that any drunken woman willing to spread her legs is free game. On the contrary. But it does mean that from a court's point of view, the thing is not such a simple issue, and that castration without anaesthesia is not necessarily the fair way to go. It would be so neat if every user here dug into his or her personal memories and did some soul searching... maybe there are memories we all (save the SX crowd, of course, they can never have date rapes, right?) have about situations that could, theoretically, be defined as rape or at least could have led to such claims afterwards, had something happened. Anyone?

My point, I guess, is the usual fare from slightly older people: it's (almost) never truly black and white, and just like in the case of death penalty, rushing into conclusions in the heat of simplified ideology would lead to bed outcomes.

And yes, I do agree that even a passed-out lady on a parking lot does have the right to control of her own sexual matters, and that she is not to be taken advantage of. I have saved my wife's friend from one of those drunken rapes by simply happening to be in the right place in the right time. But it's still not sensible for a young lady in a skimpy outfit to pass out on a parking field. It places her in a considerable risk of being the target of a crime, and makes proving a rape actually took place instead of consented sex a rather difficult thing. To draw a parallel, everybody has the right to ride a motorcycle without a car cutting in and causing an accident, but it still makes sense to wear a helmet in case something happens. Advising taking precautions and suggesting that everything that you basically have the right to do whatever you wish without being sexually harassed is not necessarily sensible is not the same as blaming the victim. This is the real world, and people sometimes turn into animals.

TL;DR: statistics might well be off between countries, definitions and laws matter, and even though every woman has the right to do whatever she wishes, every time a woman says she's been violated should not lead to the accused's testicles being crushed by a pair of bricks on TV.

Perhaps instead of telling women how they should dress for "safety," we should focus more on teaching young men and boys that sex without consent is never okay.

Pragmatism, though. Just as wearing purple and doing marches "until the violence stops" or whatever won't ever get through to a large percentage of dudes with serious rage/anger problems who beat their wives, so it will be with teaching awareness, of any sort really. We've been teaching people not to hit other people, not to take drugs etc etc. at school for an extremely long time, and basically it'll never get through to everyone. It just ends up sounding really condescending without getting much done.

Returning to your original thought, it's just common sense really. I wouldn't walk through, I dunno, a detroit ghetto with my most expensive clothes and a shopping trolley of new iphones.

Edit: just going on because this topic has me thinking, and I'm enjoying that novelty. Just sort of musing on the sort of similarities between rape and racism. By that I mean: is there an inherent dark side to human nature for such a thing, know what I'm saying? You can snuff a lot of it out, but is there a subsector of population that just wants to, well, rape shit? Some people will do anything for power, and some other people have plain unnatural urges.

Perhaps instead of telling women how they should dress for "safety," we should focus more on teaching young men and boys that sex without consent is never okay.

Pragmatism, though. You're right, it's never okay, but would this work? Just as wearing purple and doing marches "until the violence stops" or whatever won't ever get through to a large percentage of dudes with serious rage/anger problems who beat their wives, so it will be with teaching awareness, of any sort really. We've been teaching people not to hit other people, not to take drugs etc etc. at school for an extremely long time, and basically it'll never get through to everyone.

It's just common sense really. I wouldn't walk through, I dunno, a detroit ghetto with my most expensive clothes and a shopping trolley of new iphones.

The issue is that the sort of "random stranger rapes a woman because she was dressed skimpy" scenario isn't how the majority of rapes actually occur, and in the cases where that sort of thing does happen, often the woman's clothing is pretty irrelevant to the attacker.

The problem, at least here in the west, is that there's a lot of guys who seriously don't understand the concept of consent. Trying to hammer home more education on that sort of thing I think would do far more good.

The issue is that the sort of "random stranger rapes a woman because she was dressed skimpy" scenario isn't how the majority of rapes actually occur, and in the cases where that sort of thing does happen, often the woman's clothing is pretty irrelevant to the attacker.

The problem, at least here in the west, is that there's a lot of guys who seriously don't understand the concept of consent. Trying to hammer home more education on that sort of thing I think would do far more good.

Yeah, you're probably right and I'm pretty happy to concede this. I'm not exactly an expert. I guess I just worry a bit about how you'd do that education properly- it'd be fucken hard to do that stuff sensitively while actually getting the message through within a classroom context, that's for sure. All up I think hammering home of a message of "hey guys and girls, go to clubs(or whatever) in groups and look out for each other" would probably be a far better way of going about it.

Yeah, you're probably right and I'm pretty happy to concede this. I'm not exactly an expert. I guess I just worry a bit about how you'd do that education properly- it'd be fucken hard to do that stuff sensitively while actually getting the message through within a classroom context, that's for sure. All up I think hammering home of a message of "hey guys and girls, go to clubs(or whatever) in groups and look out for each other" would probably be a far better way of going about it.

Yeah I don't know exactly how you'd go about discussing stuff like that sensitively in a classroom, but I'm sure it's something that could be done. Consent definitely needs to be a bigger part of sex education.

"Don't go out alone at night" is pretty much general safety stuff, and is already brought up a lot anyway. I don't have a problem with it.

Yeah, I'm not sure how effective the whole having ads telling men not to rape rather than telling woman how to be safe are effective. The actual type of person who would rape wouldn't be deterred by those ads in the slightest. I've heard girls who said warning the girl instead of the guy is sexist, but I don't really think so. Nothing wrong with informing people who actually might be targeted on how to be safe. It would be nice if we could just tell guys not to rape and it would work, but the world just doesn't work like that.

The definition of rape really isn't that complicated. I don't see any reason to muddy it beyond simply "sex without consent."

Thank you for reading my post and understanding the points I tried to make. Now, let's combine this, without any pragmatic questions about proof, possible regrets the next morning, or reasonable expectations on the woman herself thinking anything less than absolutely clearly in any situations involving booze or any other distractions, take her word for what happened without any questions since the said consent is hers alone, and simply proceed to the "castration with moldy tools" part, and we have a perfect world in our hands.

And what about the scenario about denying a pay rise to any woman who does not perform fellatio on someone? Is it bargaining on external benefits, or is it, perhaps for a single mom struggling to feed her family, sex without any real possibility to deny consent, a rape? It could equally well be argued that it's actually worse than simply not rape, it's prostitution for profit, and the crime happens on the other side. Using the word "rape" here pretty much waters down the definition, doesn't it?

AppleQueso wrote:

Perhaps instead of telling women how they should dress for "safety," we should focus more on teaching young men and boys that sex without consent is never okay.

It's been taught for decades here and elsewhere, and as sound and fine the simple lesson sounds, it will never remove rape from the world. The thing I meant with the "older person opinion" above is that there is always a grey zone, and that no matter how ideal the justice system is, there is no real safety for a drunken woman in certain situations. What is left, of course, is retribution through penalties, and that does not make it OK retroactively. I can still remember the days when I knew with absolute certainty the answer to everything, but then I kinda grew out of it.

Any idealism is a fine foundation for seeking further solutions to the problems on hand, but the real world, unfortunately, is more complex, and people are illogical entities with minds that can change or interpret each others signals in different ways.

A perfect solution would be to make a written contract on any possible instances of intercourse beforehand, to make certain there's no question about consent afterwards. It just doesn't work that way.

And yes, rape is very much a matter of definition. I simply will not believe that the statistics on rape in Scandinavia and Somalia are based on the same standards. What counts as a marital rape here is certainly nothing more than sweet session of taking advantage of the marital benefits in certain parts of the world, and the consent was actually given by the brides dad two decades ago. If you take the feminist stance that any penetration without express consent is always rape, without any spectrum of severity, you are a half-blind fool. It's the same as defining "murder" as causing a human death without any attention to other factors, and starting to execute people who happen to have accidentally crashed and killed someone in an intersection. I mean, isn't the other side just as dead as in a case of premeditated murder?

And what about the scenario about denying a pay rise to any woman who does not perform fellatio on someone? Is it bargaining on external benefits, or is it, perhaps for a single mom struggling to feed her family, sex without any real possibility to deny consent, a rape?

Yes.

Quote:

It could equally well be argued that it's actually worse than simply not rape, it's prostitution for profit, and the crime happens on the other side. Using the word "rape" here pretty much waters down the definition, doesn't it?

No. No it does not.

Stop thinking rape = ambush from a stranger in a parking lot at night, people. Jesus fucking christ. That employee scenario is absolutely 100% rape. A woman who "agrees" to suck dick to save her job because she's desperate is not consenting, she's being coerced through means other than force but it's still coercion and it's still fucking rape. Rape isn't necessarily sex by force, it's sex without consent. You can bypass consent without using force, through extortion, fear, threats, etc.[Edit: I saw you said "pay raise" and not necessarily losing her job. If a boss denies a pay raise if you won't sleep with him, it's sexual harassment and definitely liable, and you could argue it's prostitution in this case, but if it's livelihood at stake instead of just bonus extra money, it's coercion and therefore definitely rape.]

It's not fucking difficult. If there is no consent, or if there's even a doubt of consent (e.g. she's so drunk she's passing in and out of consciousness and slurring every word but she mumbles something that might be heard as "okay?"), don't have sex.

_________________

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Extreme_violence wrote:

Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

Hate to argue against Morrigan, but rape isn't that black and white. I mean, we have varying degrees of murder, to the point where accidentally killing someone is defined as manslaughter -well, it's not like you could accidentally rape someone, but still. I guess what I'm saying is that physically forcing someone down and coercing a woman into sucking dick, while both morally reprehensible, are clearly two very different crimes and have two very different levels of severity, and thus should be treated differently.Also, I'd like to bring up a problem in society where people cover for their friends. I know of one attempted rapist (of the dragging-by-the-hair variety)who was sheltered because of this and I don't doubt there are many more.

And since it's been mentioned, I thought I'd say that this whole victim shaming idea is silly. There's a certain amount of common sense one should have in regards to safety. Now, unless you lock yourself in your house for your entire life, you'll never have complete control over your safety. For example, a man could have a sudden seizure while driving and careen into you. However, there are plenty of steps most people would take to avoid simple traffic accidents and there's generally a train of thought where not following these steps is inviting disaster, as it is with other walks in life. However, most likely because of the brutal nature of the crime, common sense is sorely discouraged when it comes to preventing rape, not counting the wonderful world of marital and filial rape, etc. And instead any critique on the behaviour of the potential victims or victims is labelled as "victim-shaming", which while it is well meaning, is extremely counter-productive and adverse with reality.

And what about the scenario about denying a pay rise to any woman who does not perform fellatio on someone? Is it bargaining on external benefits, or is it, perhaps for a single mom struggling to feed her family, sex without any real possibility to deny consent, a rape?

Yes.

I essentially agree here, on the level of principle and ethics. But if someone says it's equal to a stalker-in-a-bush case, I must say I do not agree at all, there are degrees to everything, including the sentence the guilty party should get. People take advantage of their positions and/or sex all the time in the world, both ways, and their subjective definitions of rape differ. The definition can be extremely subjective, which is fine, and it usually is built-in in the local culture. But it must also be objectively employed in many cases, such as in court, and the definition must be clear cut. Or for the purpose of making statistics. It must be defined in some way, and I bet we could find a society where the situation above would not be considered rape by the majority. Nor does it equal a violent rape in any way in my view. No, it's not something I find permissible, in any way, but it's still not as bad as many other forms of rape. There are degrees.

Morrigan wrote:

Quote:

It could equally well be argued that it's actually worse than simply not rape, it's prostitution for profit, and the crime happens on the other side. Using the word "rape" here pretty much waters down the definition, doesn't it?

No. No it does not.

Stop thinking rape = ambush from a stranger in a parking lot at night, people. Jesus fucking christ. That employee scenario is absolutely 100% rape. A woman who "agrees" to suck dick to save her job because she's desperate is not consenting, she's being coerced through means other than force but it's still coercion and it's still fucking rape. Rape isn't necessarily sex by force, it's sex without consent. You can bypass consent without using force, through extortion, fear, threats, etc.[Edit: I saw you said "pay raise" and not necessarily losing her job. If a boss denies a pay raise if you won't sleep with him, it's sexual harassment and definitely liable, and you could argue it's prostitution in this case, but if it's livelihood at stake instead of just bonus extra money, it's coercion and therefore definitely rape.]

OK, we do agree on the definition of the crime: I agree it's worth suing, but it's not necessarily rape, depending on the life situation of the lady. So it's subjective, right? That very point was what certain people here called a "second degree rape" when the laws on rape were being modified (the term was never used in the legislation, BTW), and kept yelling about there being no "2nd degree rape" or anything to that effect, and that it's always the same and whatever. But if you really compare a situation that could take place in an office with verbal coercion, to a rape case in an African civil war or in a bush behind the parking lot, and say they are the same, your world view has little to do with mine. Wrong, yes, but the same or comparable? Not in a million years. But the statistics say they are, based on the definition used.

Morrigan wrote:

It's not fucking difficult. If there is no consent, or if there's even a doubt of consent (e.g. she's so drunk she's passing in and out of consciousness and slurring every word but she mumbles something that might be heard as "okay?"), don't have sex.

And I could not agree more. But put having sex with a chick that looks sober in the party situation and her having second thoughts in morning, next to an actual bush stalker rape or a violent rape in the context of a marriage (which happens more than most people would like to acknowledge), and claim it's the same, and you're way off. A considerable fraction of feminist-inclined people seem to think the legal system is a part of "the patriarchal system with the rape culture" and male dominance and whatever, but there is a HUGE pragmatic issue with calling things that happened in a boozing party "rape" when people sober up. I'm not saying I agree with frat boys having sex with unconscious sorority girls, nor am I saying the girls should never put themselves in the situation in the sense of victim shaming. But what I am saying is that these things, in the context of any crime, are subjective things that need to be looked at in a more or less objective legal context, and there the definitions need to be clear-cut, not just someone claiming things.

And, for the record, any sex without consent is wrong. Period. I'm not saying anything else. What I am saying is that it's a matter of definition in any context, be it legal, subjective, personal, statistical, or hypothetical. The moral maxim of clear, non-intoxicated, voluntary, nearly-written-on-a-legally-binding-contract-on-paper-and-verified-by-a-lawyer kind of consent is a beautiful, inspiring, ideological objective to strive for, and I'm all for enforcing it in any way that does not collide with the real world, but please, people, please remember it's a real world with real people on both sides of the intercourse before you cry rape and call for castration and sex offender status for the male in the performance of horizontal mambo.

I believe at least 40% of the enjoyable sex in the world happens in circumstances that could afterwards be interpreted as rape in the worst case scenario as discussed here, should one party of the incident decide to do so, and more than a few of those occasions result in some kind of regret at one point or the other. Human sexuality and its subjective nature are not something easily legislated, and as much as I lament the cases of people taking advantage of drunken girls, as an example, sometimes lines need to be drawn somewhere. And in the current context, "rape" is an extremely powerful word. Let's not abuse it, it's serious business.

In the blurriest portions of the gradient are marriages or relationships wherein one of the partners is not necessarily pressured, not necessarily deeply opposed, but also not necessarily wanting to have sex, but passively tolerates the extension of masturbation they've become. They aren't necessarily overtly coerced, unless deference to an implied and at least socially-recognized obligation is included in that definition. It's very close to the middle because it's equally difficult for me to consider that consent.

If you have someone who isn't particularly thrilled by sex, yet they comply and offer no resistance against their partner's advances, then can't you say that they simply aren't enthusiastic about it? Or, at least, they aren't communicating their discomfort (which is something they should do, for all intents and purposes)

_________________

Nochielo wrote:

Crick wrote:

Years from now, no one will remember Gandhi. They will speak only of Fenriz.

And I could not agree more. But put having sex with a chick that looks sober in the party situation and her having second thoughts in morning, next to an actual bush stalker rape or a violent rape in the context of a marriage (which happens more than most people would like to acknowledge), and claim it's the same, and you're way off. A considerable fraction of feminist-inclined people seem to think the legal system is a part of "the patriarchal system with the rape culture" and male dominance and whatever, but there is a HUGE pragmatic issue with calling things that happened in a boozing party "rape" when people sober up. I'm not saying I agree with frat boys having sex with unconscious sorority girls, nor am I saying the girls should never put themselves in the situation in the sense of victim shaming. But what I am saying is that these things, in the context of any crime, are subjective things that need to be looked at in a more or less objective legal context, and there the definitions need to be clear-cut, not just someone claiming things.

I'm kind of confused at what you're saying here. Beyond a certain point of drunkenness, a person is basically unable to give consent (obviously where that point is can be hard to determine and I'm not claiming otherwise, but it's very hard to draw lines in real life). Not even just for sex; imagine if an underhanded businessman got his colleague very drunk and tricked him into signing a contract that was against his own best interests. Should the colleague have known better? Probably, but the contract would still get thrown out if he could prove he was tricked into signing while blackout drunk, and the businessman could get charged with fraud if it was serious enough. Rape is sex without consent, period. That's the legal definition. Consent can be difficult to determine - of course not every couple has sex after verbally saying they both want it - but non-verbal consent is generally pretty easy to establish. If your partner is just lying there and avoiding eye-contact and not saying anything and looking uncomfortable while you do your thing, something's probably wrong and you should find out what it is. Of course rape varies in how bad it is, just as with any other crime, but that's something the judge takes into account during sentencing.

Napero wrote:

I believe at least 40% of the enjoyable sex in the world happens in circumstances that could afterwards be interpreted as rape in the worst case scenario as discussed here, should one party of the incident decide to do so, and more than a few of those occasions result in some kind of regret at one point or the other. Human sexuality and its subjective nature are not something easily legislated, and as much as I lament the cases of people taking advantage of drunken girls, as an example, sometimes lines need to be drawn somewhere. And in the current context, "rape" is an extremely powerful word. Let's not abuse it, it's serious business.

You seem to be dancing around the point here. Are you saying that once alcohol is involved, it suddenly shouldn't be called rape?

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

If you have someone who isn't particularly thrilled by sex, yet they comply and offer no resistance against their partner's advances, then can't you say that they simply aren't enthusiastic about it? Or, at least, they aren't communicating their discomfort (which is something they should do, for all intents and purposes)

Clearly. Though it's an uncomfortable notion that consent could be reducible to submissive compliance.

If you have someone who isn't particularly thrilled by sex, yet they comply and offer no resistance against their partner's advances, then can't you say that they simply aren't enthusiastic about it? Or, at least, they aren't communicating their discomfort (which is something they should do, for all intents and purposes)

Clearly. Though it's an uncomfortable notion that consent could be reducible to submissive compliance.

Certainly, though I'd like to think that most people, once they noticed that their partner isn't really into it at all, would stop and ask what's wrong. That just sounds like common sense to me.

_________________

Nochielo wrote:

Crick wrote:

Years from now, no one will remember Gandhi. They will speak only of Fenriz.

You're an optimist, it seems. No, I'm with you. That's the responsible thing to do. Sadly, common sense and responsible behavior are luxuries unsavored by the emotional have-nots.edit: or by the shamed, the stubborn, the frightened, the repressed. *"He got on top of me, did his business, and got off. Luckily it didn't last long," she says to her best friend over the phone.*

You seem to be dancing around the point here. Are you saying that once alcohol is involved, it suddenly shouldn't be called rape?

Not really. I guess I got carried away by the combination of the bluntness of the various opinions here, though. My apologies.

What I mean is that people stating things that essentially amount to "it's rape unless she consents, including her opinion the next morning" and others going the way of "castrate all rapists with a rotten spork" combine into a really scary and frankly a barely reversed medieval world. The definition of rape, i.e. sex without consent, is obvious, and I won't challenge that; I don't want to challenge it, it's a perfect definition. But neither can I accept the idea of a regret rape, something that happens the morning after, much less the grudge rape, the opposite of a grudge fuck. Consent happens before the sex, not hours after it. And therein lies the problem, including the influence of booze.

If you're standing upright, not slurring your words, obviously at least temporarily infatuated with the other person, and somewhat coherent, and you imply you want to have sex, it's consent no matter how much you've drunk, because the other party needs to have some confidence in the obvious consent in order to ever have sex with anyone. If you're unconscious, it's not consent. Duh. That much is obvious. But drawing the line here is pretty damn difficult, and much more so in a trial afterwards. Anyone playing the "don't have sex with her if there's any indication that she has had alcohol" card has obviously never been in the situation. It is NOT clear cut, and I guess having laws that state that your nuts will be confiscated if she expresses any regret in the morning would cut this kind of sex down to a minimum. But any absolutes in this are absurd, and that's what I'm somehow trying to feebly convey. Don't emasculate every rapist, they are not all equally evil. Do not call every douchebag who in any way or on any level coerced someone into having sex with him a rapist, it's really not that simple. Everything is a scale from mild to repulsively evil, and rape is not different, even if it makes a lot of people immediately emotional. It is not a sign of a patriarchal rape culture if every yell of "rape" does not immediately lead to incarceration and gelding, it's pragmatism in the face of the labile human mind.

Certainly, though I'd like to think that most people, once they noticed that their partner isn't really into it at all, would stop and ask what's wrong. That just sounds like common sense to me.

xl, I ask this without trying to be too mean about it: have you ever been in a relationship man? Or perhaps you just have a particularly low sex drive. It's not uncommon for some quick sex/a disinterested handjob/etc to happen if one party is really frisky and the other isn't terribly interested. I had an ex who had a habit of waking me up in the middle of the night by jumping my bones, and I'm sure most people here have at some point a "bored sex" story, whether male or female.

My idea guys is that we adopt a catholic-esque approach: unless a baby is made from the act, it is rape

Certainly, though I'd like to think that most people, once they noticed that their partner isn't really into it at all, would stop and ask what's wrong. That just sounds like common sense to me.

xl, I ask this without trying to be too mean about it: have you ever been in a relationship man? Or perhaps you just have a particularly low sex drive. It's not uncommon for some quick sex/a disinterested handjob/etc to happen if one party is really frisky and the other isn't terribly interested. I had an ex who had a habit of waking me up in the middle of the night by jumping my bones, and I'm sure most people here have at some point a "bored sex" story, whether male or female.

Been in a couple of relationships, but nothing overtly serious. Is what I said all that naive, really? I mean, if my partner was just lying there, like a bloody corpse, evading eye contact and silently urging me to be quick..... Well, I wouldn't feel comfortable at all with that. A bit creeped out, even. Wouldn't you?

And I was only talking about that particular scenario here, just to be clear. A mundane quickie, like you said, if fairly normal stuff, and certainly doesn't belong in this thread.

_________________

Nochielo wrote:

Crick wrote:

Years from now, no one will remember Gandhi. They will speak only of Fenriz.

Oh, I stopped following Gandhi's career since he left Gorgoroth.

Last edited by Xlxlx on Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Napero, I still think you're trying to lump the "castrate the rapists" crowd in with the "every instance of non-consensual sex is rape" crowd just for the shock value of association. So far, only one person (somefella) has even mentioned castration or any sort of draconian punishment for rapists. I also think you're severely underselling it by saying calling it "morning after regret." If a woman is drunk enough to not be able to give true consent, then wakes up the next morning realizing she was taken advantage of while she was drunk, it's *absolutely* within reason for her to then say she was raped. Frankly I find it a bit disturbing that you're going to such lengths to define rape in such a way that excludes this possibility.

I also think you're severely underselling it by saying calling it "morning after regret." If a woman is drunk enough to not be able to give true consent, then wakes up the next morning realizing she was taken advantage of while she was drunk, it's *absolutely* within reason for her to then say she was raped.

How is he underselling it? He's saying not every instance of an intoxicated girl ending up in bed with someone is rape. I agree with him that the line cannot be clearly drawn on such an issue. There are two sides to every story. To assume the girl is always helpless and not conscious of her decisions is a biased and somewhat sexist way of looking at it.

iamntbatman wrote:

Frankly I find it a bit disturbing that you're going to such lengths to define rape in such a way that excludes this possibility.

Took you that long to figure out Napero is a rape apologist?

_________________

The_Beast_in_Black wrote:

Sathanas_BM wrote:

The biggest influence of Swedish Death Metal is In Flames.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. It's so fundamentally inaccurate that I think it may well be incorrectable.